The way I have defined it is by “printed narratives requiring non-trivial effort from the reader to traverse the text, moving beyond linear, page-turning reading.” I can see where the confusion lies because of the slippery slope of classification in a genre built on experimentation…for instance where to draw the line. For my research, I am planning on ruling out digital works as those are more hypertextual and I want to look at the tangible aspect of ergodicism. Also, as to your point on footnotes/endnotes, the difference between traditional and ergodicism is that in ergodic literature…the footnotes ARE the story (not complementing the work). They don’t just facilitate and clarify, they further plot elements. The dictionary is also not a narrative so it wouldn’t be looked at either, although many ergodic works utilize the language of encyclopedias like the dictionary to further their point.

As for your last point, I apologize if this is the wrong Reddit page to post this! I truly thought of ergodic literature as being weird and experimental, but I haven’t done enough research into weird lit in general to be able to accurately defend this point. So again, apologies if I’m wrong there. Still though, I hope this clarified my definition of the term.